draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-03.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04.txt 
Network File System Version 4 C. Lever Network File System Version 4 C. Lever
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Informational June 13, 2019 Intended status: Informational June 13, 2019
Expires: December 15, 2019 Expires: December 15, 2019
RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-03 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged
between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a
connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for
remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. The
addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an addition of the private data payload specified in this document is an
OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not OPTIONAL extension. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol does not
require the payload to be present. require the payload to be present.
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
The Expert Review policy, as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126] is The Expert Review policy, as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC8126] is
to be used to handle requests to add new entries to the "File to be used to handle requests to add new entries to the "File
Provenance Information Registry". New protocol numbers can be Provenance Information Registry". New protocol numbers can be
assigned at random as long as they do not conflict with existing assigned at random as long as they do not conflict with existing
entries in this registry. entries in this registry.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The private data extension specified in this document inherits the The private data extension specified in this document inherits the
security considerations of the link layer protocols it extends; e.g., security considerations of the protocols it extends; e.g., the MPA
the MPA protocol, as specified in [RFC5044] and extended in protocol, as specified in [RFC5044] and extended in [RFC6581].
[RFC6581]. Additional relevant analysis of RDMA security appears in Additional relevant analysis of RDMA security appears in the Security
the Security Considerations section of [RFC5042]. Considerations section of [RFC5042].
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 5 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/